[Armaegis]

 
This piece of origami has a Q...

 
I thought that was a fish at first.
 
Cool project though... http://www.spherovox.com/Corner_Folded_Horn_Designs.php

 

[manpowre]

  A potentially naive MQA question: Audirvana+, my software player of choice, announced MQA support in an upcoming version. As a Yggy owner, with zero desire to jump ship, what will this mean for me? Specifically:
 
– Will A+ be decoding all MQA streams into PCM, or only a subset?
– Does all MQA above Redbook require a compliant DAC, or do they split the difference?
– What exactly will a software-based MQA player be allowed to do, other than passing on the MQA bitstream?
 
I don't like what they appear to be doing, but I want to understand it. Thanks in advance.

 
The playback of MQA as is without decoding will give you 24/48, typically on a cell phone or native OS related playback.
 
Then software decoding level 1 will give you 24/96, which is currently what we get with MQA playback within Tidal on our Schiit dac's.
 
Then hardware decoding level 2 will give you 24/192 only for MQA certified DAC's, which currently Schiit has stated wont support due to payments and certification process to do this for each DAC to include a HW decoding. 
 
Currently iTunes doesnt support software decoding of MQA, so you will get 24/48 wihtout a MQA certified DAC in iTunes. If you have a MQA certified DAC, iTunes will forward the file to the DAC to do HW decoding to unlock full potential = 24/192.

 

[dglow]

 

  A potentially naive MQA question: Audirvana+, my software player of choice, announced MQA support in an upcoming version. As a Yggy owner, with zero desire to jump ship, what will this mean for me? Specifically:
 
– Will A+ be decoding all MQA streams into PCM, or only a subset?
– Does all MQA above Redbook require a compliant DAC, or do they split the difference?
– What exactly will a software-based MQA player be allowed to do, other than passing on the MQA bitstream?
 
I don't like what they appear to be doing, but I want to understand it. Thanks in advance.

 
The playback of MQA as is without decoding will give you 24/48, typically on a cell phone or native OS related playback.
 
Then software decoding level 1 will give you 24/96, which is currently what we get with MQA playback within Tidal on our Schiit dac's.
 
Then hardware decoding level 2 will give you 24/192 only for MQA certified DAC's, which currently Schiit has stated wont support due to payments and certification process to do this for each DAC to include a HW decoding. 
 
Currently iTunes doesnt support software decoding of MQA, so you will get 24/48 wihtout a MQA certified DAC in iTunes. If you have a MQA certified DAC, iTunes will forward the file to the DAC to do HW decoding to unlock full potential = 24/192.

Thank you! So, only recordings at a 4x sample rate will require MQA hardware for decoding, but 2x can be converted to PCM – correct?  If so, I can live with that.

 

[FrivolsListener]

 
Thank you! So, only recordings at a 4x sample rate will require MQA hardware for decoding, but 2x can be converted to PCM – correct?  If so, I can live with that.

 
If you are using MQA, you are paying a royalty (really multiple royalties), no matter how well hidden.
 
That is MQA's purpose.  To collect money.
 
Save your money and stick to FLAC.

 

[dglow]

 

 
Thank you! So, only recordings at a 4x sample rate will require MQA hardware for decoding, but 2x can be converted to PCM – correct?  If so, I can live with that.

 
If you are using MQA, you are paying a royalty (really multiple royalties), no matter how well hidden.
 
That is MQA's purpose.  To collect money.
 
Save your money and stick to FLAC.

 
If it's a streaming service one is not allowed to choose what internal format is used. A recurring subscription fee already pays for a number of different royalties – what's one more? Either way, it's not a decision we get to weigh-in on. 
  
Where it does impact me is in what hardware am I am allowed (grrr) to use with said service or, more precisely, to what extent.

 

[manpowre]

 
Thank you! So, only recordings at a 4x sample rate will require MQA hardware for decoding, but 2x can be converted to PCM – correct?  If so, I can live with that.

 
Well, Im a software developer, I program software basically, and Ive tried to figure out if we can make software to decode the 24/96 version to uncompressed digitally, but I have found little information about this. I suspect using DX custom filters might make it work. But I have a stronger feeling that each software to decode the 24/96 have to be certified by MQA group too ! so I think its a longshot to hope for the software decoding to uncompressed format will happen anytime soon.
 
And yeah, MQA want royaltees for the DAC vendor to certify the DAC itself, then royalty from Tidal/iTunes/consumer for the MQA stream or purchase. Then the studios have to pay royaltie for the MQA process to create the file itself ! Next I suspect we will have to get MQA certified cabless too at some point (Joke), but look no further to THX 15 years ago, which went into the direction of THX certified equipment including cables.

 

[manpowre]

   
If it's a streaming service one is not allowed to choose what internal format is used. A recurring subscription fee already pays for a number of different royalties – what's one more? Either way, it's not a decision we get to weigh-in on. 
  
Where it does impact me is in what hardware am I am allowed (grrr) to use with said service or, more precisely, to what extent.

The BIG problem with MQA is that we dont get to choose which DAC we want to play back the real high res material with ! They choose for us, as they will certify the DACs. So all the excellent old equipment will "only" be able to do 24/96 with Tidal and possible spotify in the future and iTunes in the future.

 

[dglow]

– Given: MQA has a Redbook-quality layer that can deliver PCM data to any DAC.
   (some have reported this layer doesn't deliver full 16/44 quality, but alas)
 
– Question 1: do ALL of the higher-quality (greater than Redbook) MQA streams require an MQA-certified/equipped/impregnated DAC... YES or NO? 
 
– Question 2: if NO to Q1 above, what exactly is the scheme?
 
It was suggested above that a split exists between 2x and 4x sample rate streams. Do we know this or is it just speculation?
 
 
EDIT: I'm spending the evening reading up on all this, as MQA allowing software decoders is a recent development. Thanks to manpowre, Jason, and watchnerd for their answers and suggested reading. Cheers!

 

[Jason Stoddard]

   
The playback of MQA as is without decoding will give you 24/48, typically on a cell phone or native OS related playback.
 
Then software decoding level 1 will give you 24/96, which is currently what we get with MQA playback within Tidal on our Schiit dac's.
 
Then hardware decoding level 2 will give you 24/192 only for MQA certified DAC's, which currently Schiit has stated wont support due to payments and certification process to do this for each DAC to include a HW decoding. 
 
Currently iTunes doesnt support software decoding of MQA, so you will get 24/48 wihtout a MQA certified DAC in iTunes. If you have a MQA certified DAC, iTunes will forward the file to the DAC to do HW decoding to unlock full potential = 24/192.

This is a little misleading. 24/48 is actually about 13/48 without any decoding, if you dig into it.
 
A good summary of MQA performance, with measurements, can be found on the Archimago blog: 
 
http://archimago.blogspot.com/search?q=MQA

 

[OldRoadToad]

​Tidal is primarily owned by a cRap farteest. I refuse to support cRap.   That MQA has aligned it self with the likes of JayZ and Be-Once and wants to be the one ring of the music world to bind us all, I shall simply avoid it as best I can.
 
ORT

 

[leeperry]

You guys make it sound like HDCD, which was 14 bit + dithered 20bit supposedly IIRC.

 

[Baldr]

  You guys make it sound like HDCD, which was 14 bit + dithered 20bit supposedly IIRC.

We all know the significance of HDCD today.

 

[Khragon]

Hmm.. so all the information is there already in the MQA stream, but depending on the level of payment plan you get varying level of performance.  The free(or not, didn't care enough to check) software decoding deliberately degrade sound quality and hold user hostage to get more $$.  Sounds like DRM to me haha, no thanks.

 

[DigitalFrontEnd]

  Hmm.. so all the information is there already in the MQA stream, but depending on the level of payment plan you get varying level of performance.  The free(or not, didn't care enough to check) software decoding deliberately degrade sound quality and hold user hostage to get more $$.  Sounds like DRM to me haha, no thanks.

I will willing to join in if someone wants to crowd fund an ad campaign:
 
MQA: No Thanks. 
 
Run it everywhere. Tear this monster down.

 

[leeperry]

Most records these days got barely a few bits of actual dynamics so they might as well obtain better masterings and claim that they sound better due to MQA. No one cares for DSD but real world fact is that SACD masters are just better.